Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
BradOrbital
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:12 pm

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by BradOrbital »

Thanks, interesting read Sunburn.
NickD
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:47 pm

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by NickD »

This certainly matches up with the way modern/future air combat works in CMANO, where sensors, jammers and payloads are the key elements. It's very rare for a fight to close to dog fighting range, and if it does so it generally means you've done something wrong.
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by Primarchx »

Dogfighting with modern a/c usually means I'm either desperate or greedy.
ORIGINAL: NickD

This certainly matches up with the way modern/future air combat works in CMANO, where sensors, jammers and payloads are the key elements. It's very rare for a fight to close to dog fighting range, and if it does so it generally means you've done something wrong.
User avatar
mikkey
Posts: 3173
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Slovakia

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by mikkey »

Interesting, thank you for sharing.
Gneckes
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:13 am

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by Gneckes »

That was very interesting, thanks for sharing!
I might be wrong about this, but I envisage a kind of sensor/missile truck platform, providing long-range detection and fire against air targets.
Also, radar and ECM being able to/having to adapt to enemy radar and ECM even mid-mission sounds very intriguing. I assume the computational power required for that would be quite high, but who knows what kind of computers we have in 20 years. So, might this lead to a situation where neither side is able to use their radars for very long before the enemy finds a way to counter-act whatever you're doing?
NickD
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:47 pm

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by NickD »

This is also an interesting read on the topic: http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35-v ... who-cares/
Zaslon
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:52 am

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by Zaslon »

Interesting file but this phrase kills my enthusiasm:
[font="Times New Roman"]
CSBA compiled a database of all confirmed aerial victories from 1965 through 2013. Thee primary source for the database is regional and national databases maintained by the Air Combat Information Group (ACIG).
[/font]

It's well known that the ACIG database posted in the web have tons of inaccuracies, Tom Cooper didn't update the data. Tom recognise that. The data was compiled before 2010 when Iraq's data become more available. Now we know, for example, that iranian F-14s never shot down any Iraqi MiG-25. In ACIG database, Iranians claims at least 12 Foxbat shot down in aerial combats.
Image
Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China
poaw
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by poaw »

If problems in the database are that well known then it's likely that they corrected them when compiling the data.

The only identify the ACIG as a primary source, not the only one used.
Zaslon
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:52 am

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by Zaslon »

I hope that, cuz
Image
Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China
StellarRat
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:49 pm

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by StellarRat »

The sixth generation fighter should be a drone with air-to-air capability. IMO, it's bad enough the US is paying over a trillion for the F-35 when air-to-air drones have already proven to be workable at a fraction of the cost. Had the same amount of time and money been applied to developing said drones our current conversation would completely different now. I have no nostalgia about putting people in harms way if a machine can do it even if it's not as efficient, yet.
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by Primarchx »

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

The sixth generation fighter should be a drone with air-to-air capability. IMO, it's bad enough the US is paying over a trillion for the F-35 when air-to-air drones have already proven to be workable at a fraction of the cost. Had the same amount of time and money been applied to developing said drones our current conversation would completely different now. I have no nostalgia about putting people in harms way if a machine can do it even if it's not as efficient, yet.

And the proof is??

That said, as has been noted in several places, some nations are electing to stretch their 4th gen a/c out and skip 5th gen entirely to move into the drone air superiority realm when it matures. But to say its' mature now, well, I'd like to see that proof.
Gneckes
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:13 am

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by Gneckes »

Yeah, the last I heard, the latency issues proved to be a pretty big hindrance for air-to-air use of drones.
That might matter less for BVR combat, but you can't beat the laws of physics.
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by Primarchx »

The big hurdle will be systems that can autonomously attack. We don't quite have that yet and there are lots of reasons why that will take a while to perfect to the point that militaries will trust it.
Gneckes
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:13 am

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by Gneckes »

Yeah, there's plenty of media out there about rogue military AIs...
User avatar
cf_dallas
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Grapevine, TX

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by cf_dallas »


That is a really interesting read, and makes some good arguments that may be valid in the opening stage of a high-intensity conflict. What happens on day three, when you're out of your pre-war stock of VLRAAMs, down to minimal AMRAAMS, and the logistics chain is under severe A2/AD threat?

Or when a peer competitor can get inside your communications architecture and make a complete mess of targeting, long range ID, etc?

Anyone think that an F-86 starts looking pretty attractive at that point? You can't jam a .50 call bullet.
Formerly cwemyss
Gneckes
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:13 am

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by Gneckes »

I reckon that, even under such difficult circumstances, you'd rather have something like an F-15 or F-16- you can't really jam a 20mm Vulcan burst or Sidewinder either, adn on-board NCTI and target-detection capability might be invaluable, not to mention the generally improved flight performance.
User avatar
cf_dallas
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Grapevine, TX

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by cf_dallas »

ORIGINAL: Gneckes

I reckon that, even under such difficult circumstances, you'd rather have something like an F-15 or F-16- you can't really jam a 20mm Vulcan burst or Sidewinder either, adn on-board NCTI and target-detection capability might be invaluable, not to mention the generally improved flight performance.

F-86 was a bit of hyperbole, but you get the idea. If you're fighting someone with very advanced information warfare capability, even an F-15 may be vulnerable. You can't hack something that doesn't rely on software.
Formerly cwemyss
StellarRat
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:49 pm

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by StellarRat »

I'm not talking about autonomous (fully automated attack drones.) I'm talking about drones that are under human control and are simply missiles trucks for air to air missiles. The current thinking is that one manned "mothership" would direct several drones into the combat zone (avoiding the latency problem) and control their missile launches. The next step would be ground controlled drones (assuming the latency problem is fixed.) Fully autonomous drones probably are a ways off, but would solve the "hacking/jamming" problem. Obviously, they'd have to be smart enough not to kill the wrong targets unless we're in conventional war situation with well defined "lines" on the map.

http://news.usni.org/2014/02/13/navys-u ... ir-fighter
User avatar
Primarchx
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:29 pm

RE: Trends in Air-to-Air Combat: Implications for Future Air Superiority

Post by Primarchx »

ORIGINAL: StellarRat

I'm not talking about autonomous (fully automated attack drones.) I'm talking about drones that are under human control and are simply missiles trucks for air to air missiles. The current thinking is that one manned "mothership" would direct several drones into the combat zone (avoiding the latency problem) and control their missile launches. The next step would be ground controlled drones (assuming the latency problem is fixed.) Fully autonomous drones probably are a ways off, but would solve the "hacking/jamming" problem. Obviously, they'd have to be smart enough not to kill the wrong targets unless we're in conventional war situation with well defined "lines" on the map.

http://news.usni.org/2014/02/13/navys-u ... ir-fighter

Yes, I've seen that model. It's still not a proven system ready for implementation. The goal is autonomy, though. So maybe that's Gen 6+?
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”